Jeff Bezos will fly on the first passenger spaceflight of Blue Origin in July(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Jeff Bezos will fly on the first passenger spaceflight of Blue Origin in July
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/07/jeff-bezos-to-fly-on-blue-origin-first-passenger-flight-in-july.html
213 comments
They've done 14 successful launches. It's probably considerably safer than mountain climbing etc.
On the other hand, Blue Origin's competitor Virgin Galactic isn't automated and looks a lot more dangerous.
On the other hand, Blue Origin's competitor Virgin Galactic isn't automated and looks a lot more dangerous.
> considerably safer than mountain climbing
I thought that the failure rate for manned missions was accepted to be around 1 crew loss in several hundred flights. That seems much worse than typical mountain climbing, with Everest and K2 being somewhat riskier than space flight on a per-attempt basis.
I thought that the failure rate for manned missions was accepted to be around 1 crew loss in several hundred flights. That seems much worse than typical mountain climbing, with Everest and K2 being somewhat riskier than space flight on a per-attempt basis.
It's 1/270, but this won't be an orbital flight. The rocket climbs up to the Karman line then releases the capsule. There is no reentering which is one of the most dangerous phases of orbit flights.
The Shuttle's rate was much higher than that one in several hundred - two full crew losses in 135 launches.
That said, suborbital flight is substantially safer.
That said, suborbital flight is substantially safer.
14 trials is nothing - especially when even a 5% risk would be considered too high. For reference, the 95 % confidence interval on a distribution with a 1 in 5 accident risk would include this result:
https://epitools.ausvet.com.au/ciproportion
A 0.1% risk is probably considered too high for tourist flights that have no other useful purpose. They can't do enough flights to verify that experimentally, they'll calculate the risk via simulation and then validate the simulations with the test flights.
Indeed a 0.1% risk is far too high for tourist flights. The FAA doesn't accept the less than 0.0006% incident rate[1] of general aviation as safe enough for paying passengers.
[1] 0.54 fatal incidents per 100,000 flight hours and decreasing year on year: https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=2...
[1] 0.54 fatal incidents per 100,000 flight hours and decreasing year on year: https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=2...
Not sure where everyone is getting their numbers but the failure rate for manned launches over the last 20 years is 0.8%. The percentage chance of death while climbing Everest is around 1%. SpaceX’s Falcon has ~2% failure rate. Unmanned flight failure rates are considerably higher. So risks of manned flight look comparable to climbing Everest.
Sources: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/logyear.html
Everest: https://www.washington.edu/news/2020/08/26/mount-everest-sum...
SpaceX: https://spacex-info.com/stats/
Sources: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/logyear.html
Everest: https://www.washington.edu/news/2020/08/26/mount-everest-sum...
SpaceX: https://spacex-info.com/stats/
SpaceX has a 100% success rate for their manned flights.
Can you extrapolate all manned flight numbers (which are done by people with much more experience at it) to Blue Origin which has apparently only done 14 flights of New Shepard ever?
They have lots of successes in testing and it is a far less dangerous thing than orbital flight and reentry
i don't think anyone could have told him anything; at amazon employees are supposed to learn the word of the dear leader by heart, there used to be a bit of a personality cult around him, when i worked there.
I’m wondering if Amazon wouldn’t let him do this while he was at the helm
They're required to have contingency plans in case something happens to him, but they can't keep him from going. Not that they would if they could.
They're required to have contingency plans in case something happens to him, but they can't keep him from going. Not that they would if they could.
They have done many successful flights.
They just don’t have the marketing skills of someone like a Spacex.
They just don’t have the marketing skills of someone like a Spacex.
Suborbital flights. Which require about 3% of energy needed to reach an orbit, and are of very limited practical use other than serving as an extended rollercoaster ride for tourists.
Blue Origin are very far away from achieving anything comparable to even SpaceX first Falcon-1 flight from 2008.
Blue Origin are very far away from achieving anything comparable to even SpaceX first Falcon-1 flight from 2008.
BO has completed 15 test flights over 6 years of a platform that bears little comparison with SpaceX's achievements.
Each BO test I've watched has been very well presented and seemingly marketed - it's just that at this point, frankly, what they're doing is of less interest than that what SpaceX has accomplished.
Each BO test I've watched has been very well presented and seemingly marketed - it's just that at this point, frankly, what they're doing is of less interest than that what SpaceX has accomplished.
I agree with this thought. They've done a whole lot less boundary pushing than SpaceX.
The rationale for getting into the game seemed more like, "Well, this space thing seems like an emerging market, and we can't be a true monopoly unless we have a tentacle in it, too."
The rationale for getting into the game seemed more like, "Well, this space thing seems like an emerging market, and we can't be a true monopoly unless we have a tentacle in it, too."
All of them sub-orbital, launching a parabola rocket is much easier than putting something out in space.
The flights are of completely different magnitude. SpaceX sends humans to orbital velocity. BO goes straight up and down to the karman line
[deleted]
Well, eat your own dogfood they say.
Ah, so we are lunching rockets again? :-)
Respect (and godspeed!)
An Elon / Jeff space willy-waving contest about who gets to be Space Bro Alpha seems like a net win for humanity
“Willy waving contest” is long over and, ironically, SpaceX’s Gwynne Shotwell is the winner.
She’s a super hero in my book. Musk had the dream but she’s turning it into reality which is the hard part.
She’s a super hero in my book. Musk had the dream but she’s turning it into reality which is the hard part.
I am sorry but some of the stuff she has said is quite nuts. Point to point travel with Starship is never going to happen the way she describes it. A rocket that big makes so much noise you can not launch it at half to ports they listed. If you would launch a Starship on Zürich lake you will blow out every window in the city.
Doesn't matter. That would be a good incentive to have their windows blast proofed. Which is good for the special glasses industry. And all the workers! And makes turning houses into bunkers so much more easy. The swiss like their bunkers.
possibly, granted i haven't gone over everything she's said. Her job description of running SpaceX day-to-day balanced with SpaceX's achievements is what makes her pretty amazing in my eyes. Maybe things have changed, maybe she's delegated the day to day ops to someone else. I can't be 100% sure.
The people who make it happen are the ones i most admire. It takes a village, i mean you're not getting anywhere without the vision and foresight of people like Musk. You're also not getting anywhere without a leader assembling the right team (which i think is Musk's real talent) but, to me, i most admire the people on the ground making plans, managing/coordinating, and turning wrenches.
The people who make it happen are the ones i most admire. It takes a village, i mean you're not getting anywhere without the vision and foresight of people like Musk. You're also not getting anywhere without a leader assembling the right team (which i think is Musk's real talent) but, to me, i most admire the people on the ground making plans, managing/coordinating, and turning wrenches.
Her TED thing of point to point rocket travel cheaper than business class plane tickets by 2028 was just embarrassing.
I mean, Elon made the same claims about Starship Earth to Earth, Mars colonization, plus other outrageous claims about the hyperloop and the boring company and Tesla autopilot (in 2014 he said that in 5 years you'll be able to go to sleep behind the wheel). At what point does the genious marketing end and defrauding investors with false promises begin?
When they intentionally deceive. When you promise something without intention of delivering.
In case of SpaceX and Tesla they claim outrageous things with every intention to deliver.
Sometimes they are right, sometimes not. It's up to investors to know the difference.
In case of SpaceX and Tesla they claim outrageous things with every intention to deliver.
Sometimes they are right, sometimes not. It's up to investors to know the difference.
American Oligarchs are certainly up to more interesting things than Russian ones at the moment!
I don’t know, the yachts that have their own yachts look kind of cool. Oh, wait, Bezos is building one for half a bil. Never mind.
I suspect the Russian ones are up to plenty that's "interesting", but not in a particularly positive way.
If we could get every billionaire to reinvest their money in world changing technology like Elon we’d live in a much better world. Honestly this is capitalism at its best, how do we do more like this?
Is that the new/modern definition of oligarch, or how oligarch is used in US?
I dont see how Jeff or Elon are oligarchs in the sense of russian oligarchs.
I dont see how Jeff or Elon are oligarchs in the sense of russian oligarchs.
IMO you have to maintain or exert some control over a nation in order to be an oligarch. So Jeff and Elon are out, but David Koch and Robert Mercer meet the definition for me. These guys have exerted huge control over the US over the last 30-40 years.
Jeff Bezos owns the 2nd largest newspaper in the country, and now a major movie studio. I would say he qualifies.
How has he used that newspaper to exert political control over the US?
How easily is that question answered?
He might not have used his newspaper, but AWS was instrumental in de-platforming Parler after the Jan 6 mutiny.
Johnny Depp would basically qualify under that definition.
According to Google his net worth is $150 million, so that is 0.1% of Bezos, and he owns 0 powerful companies to Bezos' 3. Not remotely in the same league.
Perhaps they are not able to move the lever as much as russian oligarchs, but both have some levers to pull.
Given that Russia has mostly an oil based economy roughly the size of Italy, the levers they are moving are quite a bit smaller than their American counterparts.
Bezos or Koch or Hamm or DeVoss can't move their American levers as far, but the overall output is quite substantial compared to what Abramovich can achieve with his.
Bezos or Koch or Hamm or DeVoss can't move their American levers as far, but the overall output is quite substantial compared to what Abramovich can achieve with his.
What's the difference between an American oligarch and a Russian oligarch? Aside from the nationality.
Oligarchs were basically given large existing monopolies and then just sit on them and make money with no reason to innovate.
While it’s a fun jibe to throw at them it’s a completely different thing to just being insanely wealthy through actually doing something effectively (if sometimes immorally)
While it’s a fun jibe to throw at them it’s a completely different thing to just being insanely wealthy through actually doing something effectively (if sometimes immorally)
Is that what makes an oligarch? The way I use it, oligarch implies political power. You could, in theory, be a poor oligarch.
As you said, oligarch implies power, and with power one typically controls resources in a way that wealth can be generated for selfish purposes. The strict definition is something like "ruling by few", but I've always thought of it as rule by the extremely wealthy since that's how it typically seems to play out.
Sure, they are pretty closely related in pratice. The Senatorial oligarchy of Rome were pretty much also the wealthy of Rome, and often those with military power.
Still, the term implies politics... not just money. I would also hazard that it implies hereditary power. You could argue that dynastic politicians are oligarch. I'm not really disputing, just pondering.
Ultimately, for both Russians and Americans, oligarch is a (usually derogatory) analogy. It's not a formal oligarchy. We could also say aristocrats, which is more appealing to me.
Also, there's an idea that all governments, or systems of power are oligarchies. No matter what the formal system of government, some group of powerful people wield a lot of power. Rich people, religious leaders, senators, backscene power brokers, generals...
Still, the term implies politics... not just money. I would also hazard that it implies hereditary power. You could argue that dynastic politicians are oligarch. I'm not really disputing, just pondering.
Ultimately, for both Russians and Americans, oligarch is a (usually derogatory) analogy. It's not a formal oligarchy. We could also say aristocrats, which is more appealing to me.
Also, there's an idea that all governments, or systems of power are oligarchies. No matter what the formal system of government, some group of powerful people wield a lot of power. Rich people, religious leaders, senators, backscene power brokers, generals...
Oligarch tend to need outsized control over the government in addition to billions of dollars. I don't know if Elon and Jeff have that yet.
This seems like an oligarchy to me https://theintercept.com/2021/05/25/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-s...
Redundancy for NASA funded projects makes sense, and it's how we regained the ability to launch human crewed rockets from US soil: Boeing wanted to be the sole contract, and has bungled their launch projects, and it was due to NASA also contracting SpaceX that we've had any successful launches. When SpaceX was recently awarded a sole contract, plenty of people — including here on HN — howled that NASA was letting SpaceX turn into a monopolist like Boeing tried to become. NASA has historically chosen multiple providers for redundancy, and the SpaceX sole contract was a unique departure due to NASA lacking sufficient funding. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/16/nasa-lu...
The Intercept isn't exactly known for... neutral... reporting.
The Intercept isn't exactly known for... neutral... reporting.
'neutrality' is a mirage, but WaPo isn't known for it, either, and in this context it's an especially egregious choice
Okay, here's CBS saying the same thing: NASA always wanted two contracts, and was forced to give up on redundancy on the lunar lander due to their budget getting slashed. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-wins-2-9-billion-contrac...
"Agency managers originally hoped to award follow-on HLS contracts to two of the companies to encourage competition and protect against the possibility of major problems or delays that might affect one company but not the other.
But Congress only allocated $850 million in NASA's fiscal 2021 budget for lander development, about one quarter of the amount the agency said it needed to have a new vehicle ready by 2024.
Given the available money and projected future spending, NASA "down selected" to a single contractor — SpaceX — deciding the California rocket builder offered the most attractive combination of cost, technology and management expertise."
Neutrality may always have some element of manufacture, but that doesn't mean it's equivalent to intentionally trying to generate partisan outrage. This isn't a "bailout fund for Jeff Bezos" — word-for-word quote from the headline of the Intercept article! — it's just NASA continuing to try to get budget for the projects it wanted all along, so it can have redundant contractors like it did with the commercial crew program and avoid getting stuck with monopolist pricing (and monopolist poor performance) like it nearly did with Boeing.
"Agency managers originally hoped to award follow-on HLS contracts to two of the companies to encourage competition and protect against the possibility of major problems or delays that might affect one company but not the other.
But Congress only allocated $850 million in NASA's fiscal 2021 budget for lander development, about one quarter of the amount the agency said it needed to have a new vehicle ready by 2024.
Given the available money and projected future spending, NASA "down selected" to a single contractor — SpaceX — deciding the California rocket builder offered the most attractive combination of cost, technology and management expertise."
Neutrality may always have some element of manufacture, but that doesn't mean it's equivalent to intentionally trying to generate partisan outrage. This isn't a "bailout fund for Jeff Bezos" — word-for-word quote from the headline of the Intercept article! — it's just NASA continuing to try to get budget for the projects it wanted all along, so it can have redundant contractors like it did with the commercial crew program and avoid getting stuck with monopolist pricing (and monopolist poor performance) like it nearly did with Boeing.
One creates businesses that have scale in a quasi open market while the other privatized formerly state run businesses and keeps their position by further supporting the head of the nation in all matters.
Level of control over governmental functions?
I like Mr Burnham's take on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7p57mBnVa4
Just watch for any purchases of remote volcano islands and large quantities of orange jumpsuits.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Billionaires world over suddenly get in shape here after.
"net win for humanity" can be taken two ways. Elon / Jeff not making it back could also be considered a "win" even if dark. For the good they have done they have done a lot of damage to humanity on their way to become billionaires.
Could you be more specific? "A lot of damage to humanity" is a quite strong claim with deep ethical implications. I would prefer a concrete example of such an act.
It would take me a week to go through every detail but wikipedia has some summaries:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_(company)#Controversies
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.#Lawsuits_and_contr...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_(company)#Controversies
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.#Lawsuits_and_contr...
What constitutes "lots of damage to humanity" in those paragraphs you've provided?
"It would take me a week to go through every detail"
I did not request every incident, but just one concrete example that would validate the quite strong characterization.
In the United States being sued is not a proof of guilt, it's just a proof of being sued.
This is unlike in some other countries, where the guilt of the person is presupposed and the purpose of the court ruling is just to make it official.
I did not request every incident, but just one concrete example that would validate the quite strong characterization.
In the United States being sued is not a proof of guilt, it's just a proof of being sued.
This is unlike in some other countries, where the guilt of the person is presupposed and the purpose of the court ruling is just to make it official.
What damage did they do?
Manipulated the price of certain crypto, and monopolized e-commerce.
Speculative bubble getting bigger and bigger by attracting greater and greater fools. No matter what Elon does or says, it's just a zero-sum game. What would the humanity lose if Bitcoin disappeared right now? Absolutely nothing (except people who hold it would lose their "investments").
To the second point, you should look into the definition of monopoly. Amazon is a behemoth, not a monopoly. And they have created immense value.
To the second point, you should look into the definition of monopoly. Amazon is a behemoth, not a monopoly. And they have created immense value.
Yes, that crypto thing was a real damage for humanity.
The people who are hurt by dips whether artificial or not are invariably going to be new, small time investors.
Even if you think they shouldn't gamble with their money I find it hard to argue there was no damage done.
Even if you think they shouldn't gamble with their money I find it hard to argue there was no damage done.
Think of the millions of starving kids in 3rds world countries who might've been lifted out of poverty, but for Musk's mercurial tweets about Bitcoin.
Not sure if you’re being sarcastic, but surely taxpayers subsidizing billionaires’ rocket testing and allowing the gains to be privatized is a net loss for society, no?
[deleted]
Can you be specific on the subsidizing? Loaded comments without backed sources are intellectually lazy.
'google: "SpaceX subsidies"
SpaceX gets almost $900 million in federal subsidies to deliver broadband to rural America https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/08/tech/spacex-starlink-subsidie...
SpaceX just won $885 million in federal subsidies to expand Starlink, Elon Musk's satellite-internet project https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/spacex-just-won-do...
In addition to that SpaceX is government contractor.
SpaceX and Blue Origin are the next Boeing/Lockheed. Government gives them both money to R&D so that they don't have just one innovative supplier.
Tesla is a great example of government project. Tesla has received $3-4 billion in subsidies.
edit:
SpaceX has received other direct subsidies. NASA has given seed money and development funding for Dragon, Falcon 9, engines and demonstration launches ($248M at least) https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/453605main_Commercial_Space_Minutes...
SpaceX gets almost $900 million in federal subsidies to deliver broadband to rural America https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/08/tech/spacex-starlink-subsidie...
SpaceX just won $885 million in federal subsidies to expand Starlink, Elon Musk's satellite-internet project https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/spacex-just-won-do...
In addition to that SpaceX is government contractor.
SpaceX and Blue Origin are the next Boeing/Lockheed. Government gives them both money to R&D so that they don't have just one innovative supplier.
Tesla is a great example of government project. Tesla has received $3-4 billion in subsidies.
edit:
SpaceX has received other direct subsidies. NASA has given seed money and development funding for Dragon, Falcon 9, engines and demonstration launches ($248M at least) https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/453605main_Commercial_Space_Minutes...
> In addition to that SpaceX is government contractor.
It's important to note that SpaceX is different from most space-related government contractor in that they mostly sell a packaged service, whereas other contractors before it had development contracts. Boeing / ULA etc were paid to develop launchers, SpaceX sells launches. (I know that SpaceX benefited from subsidies towards achieving that, but their competitors did not achieve that or even tried.)
The key difference is that they are not (entirely) incentivized on sucking on the subsidies teats. That the US government pays them to provide a public service makes them more akin to any utility than to typical government contractors.
It's important to note that SpaceX is different from most space-related government contractor in that they mostly sell a packaged service, whereas other contractors before it had development contracts. Boeing / ULA etc were paid to develop launchers, SpaceX sells launches. (I know that SpaceX benefited from subsidies towards achieving that, but their competitors did not achieve that or even tried.)
The key difference is that they are not (entirely) incentivized on sucking on the subsidies teats. That the US government pays them to provide a public service makes them more akin to any utility than to typical government contractors.
NASA has given seed money and development funding for Dragon, Falcon 9, engines and demonstration launches ($248M at least) https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/453605main_Commercial_Space_Minutes...
I think this is the same way as Boeing and others get their money for development.
I think this is the same way as Boeing and others get their money for development.
The difference is that Boeing and others are financed the way a public works would be, like a bridge or highway. They thus have no incentive to get cheaper / more efficient once they get the contract, and in fact make more money the less efficient they are -- as long as the government doesn't tire of paying them. SpaceX gets development subsidies, like the others do, but they sell launches, not an ongoing project. As a result, the more efficient they are, the more profit they make.
United Launch Alliance (ULA), sells launches. ULA sells launches for Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V. ULA is Boeing/Lockheed joint venture.
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, New Horizons, Starliner crew capsule ... basically all NASA and DoD launches come from ULA.
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, New Horizons, Starliner crew capsule ... basically all NASA and DoD launches come from ULA.
Are you suggesting $1.8M for expansion of Starlink to deliver broadband to rural America is not a net win? As someone in the midwest US, Starlink is the first realistic opportunity for many people I know to access broadband internet. My mother-in-law has had to teach from home all year using her cellphone as a hotspot because that's the best internet she could get no matter how much she payed.
I'm not suggesting.
People are engaged in heated normative[1] discussion with little or no facts. I am not. Even saying Tesla is a great example of a government project does not mean it's good or bad. Just a great example.
I just wanted to add some facts to the discussion. Not enough, but some. I think it would be great to find out the total indirect and direct subsidies these companies receive, but I could not find it.
----
1: Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good or desirable or permissible and others as bad or undesirable or impermissible.
People are engaged in heated normative[1] discussion with little or no facts. I am not. Even saying Tesla is a great example of a government project does not mean it's good or bad. Just a great example.
I just wanted to add some facts to the discussion. Not enough, but some. I think it would be great to find out the total indirect and direct subsidies these companies receive, but I could not find it.
----
1: Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good or desirable or permissible and others as bad or undesirable or impermissible.
I appreciate the information. I did not have an opinion on the matter until you provided context that the subsidies were specifically for StarLink.
$900 million = 5 days of federal food stamps spending
$3-4 billion = 3 weeks of federal food stamps spending
I know which I think is the better government expenditure
$3-4 billion = 3 weeks of federal food stamps spending
I know which I think is the better government expenditure
That's a pretty gross way of thinking. Yuck.
Not an argument.
Was your comment an argument? Looked like an opinion. Responded in kind.
As a counterpoint, $900 million to get rural America actual broadband, where cable companies used similiar handouts to line their own pockets and do nothing...
We're in a "Give a man a fish/teach a man to fish" type hypothetical now.
We're in a "Give a man a fish/teach a man to fish" type hypothetical now.
[deleted]
Still a government handout to private corporation.
It's a country investing in infrastructure.
A hand out is bailing out failing auto makers, forgiving debt arbitrarily, etc, etc.
A hand out is bailing out failing auto makers, forgiving debt arbitrarily, etc, etc.
luffapi(3)
No.
There's no guarantee that taxpayers money would be used for a better endeavor if it was used otherwise.
And the very definition of better endeavor is pretty shaky in any case.
So one can debate on whether optimal resource allocation is done by the government or private individuals, but it is not 'surely' better to have the government allocate the resources.
There's no guarantee that taxpayers money would be used for a better endeavor if it was used otherwise.
And the very definition of better endeavor is pretty shaky in any case.
So one can debate on whether optimal resource allocation is done by the government or private individuals, but it is not 'surely' better to have the government allocate the resources.
Why does the richest individual on the planet need a handout of government cash for a project he wants to pursue anyway?
Will there be any element of cheap subsidised access to space in return for the government's investment?
Or is it exactly what it seems to be - a no-strings handout?
As for better endeavours - perhaps you're underestimating the economic utility of a single payer health care system which wouldn't bankrupt 500,000 individuals a year. (For example.)
Will there be any element of cheap subsidised access to space in return for the government's investment?
Or is it exactly what it seems to be - a no-strings handout?
As for better endeavours - perhaps you're underestimating the economic utility of a single payer health care system which wouldn't bankrupt 500,000 individuals a year. (For example.)
That is one way to top Elon Musk :-)
I disagree. SpaceX doesn't need to play at Space Tourism. Musk is working on species defining technology and capabilities while his 'competitors' play with space Tourism.
Congratulations to everyone who contributed with their wallet. We did it, Amazon users!
I was a bit shocked how Jeff Bezos looked in the video [0] in which he invited his brother to go with him. He does not look healthy, even a bit bloated. Does anyone know if he is having health issues?
[0] https://www.instagram.com/p/CP0MSOqnYEo/
[0] https://www.instagram.com/p/CP0MSOqnYEo/
The facial bloating could be from medication such as corticosteroids or ACE inhibitors.
Taking the flight this early before more testing may also indicate that he is not well. It might also explain him leaving Amazon.
Taking the flight this early before more testing may also indicate that he is not well. It might also explain him leaving Amazon.
If he wasn’t doing well the stress from the G forces of the flight would kill him off.
Or he's just been craving some greasy burgers recently. Jumping immediately to health issues is a bit much IMO
You see his outline a bit later in the video, still looking fit. I actually thought the same when watching the video. I saw similar features in the faces of multiple friends who needed regular cortisone intake.
There’s an interesting trend I’ve seen where a lot of folks who were previously super health conscious, put on weight when they are in a relationship they enjoy.
Anyone have a study or article of this phenomenon?
Anyone have a study or article of this phenomenon?
Stress reduces weight, so that could be a factor.
Enjoying life with a partner includes fine dining and relaxing more (less sport).
Enjoying life with a partner includes fine dining and relaxing more (less sport).
The chicken is an egg's way of making another egg. We are machines that work to attract mates, reproduce, and rear young. Once one has achieved the goal of attracting a mate, there's little need to devote energy to courtship displays - though perhaps more need to reserve energy in case of hardship. I might be being a little reductive though :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
> We are machines that work to attract mates, reproduce, and rear young.
How would this be distinguished from people simply having the desire to orgasm which unintentionally causes reproduction? At least for males, I can see a case for the machine’s goal to spread the seed as far and wide as possible, so there need not be any biological imperative to stop at one mate.
How would this be distinguished from people simply having the desire to orgasm which unintentionally causes reproduction? At least for males, I can see a case for the machine’s goal to spread the seed as far and wide as possible, so there need not be any biological imperative to stop at one mate.
> How would this be distinguished from people simply having the desire to orgasm which unintentionally causes reproduction?
That's reverse causality. Evolutionary fitness is a strong driver of human behavior. There's plenty of incidental behaviour, but in terms of baby making it's clear cut.
> so there need not be any biological imperative to stop at one mate.
It's more efficient when you consider humans have a long maturation time. Reproductive success is also greater when grandparents are involved with child rearing, implying that a strong family unit leads to better outcomes. Promiscuity is definitely favorable if the rearing duties can be foisted onto someone else, though paternity tests and prophylactics have changed the landscape somewhat.
There's a lot more to it, and much of what I've learnt is from an old Stanford lecture series by Robert Sapolsky called human behavioural biology. Worth a watch if you're interested
That's reverse causality. Evolutionary fitness is a strong driver of human behavior. There's plenty of incidental behaviour, but in terms of baby making it's clear cut.
> so there need not be any biological imperative to stop at one mate.
It's more efficient when you consider humans have a long maturation time. Reproductive success is also greater when grandparents are involved with child rearing, implying that a strong family unit leads to better outcomes. Promiscuity is definitely favorable if the rearing duties can be foisted onto someone else, though paternity tests and prophylactics have changed the landscape somewhat.
There's a lot more to it, and much of what I've learnt is from an old Stanford lecture series by Robert Sapolsky called human behavioural biology. Worth a watch if you're interested
> That's reverse causality. Evolutionary fitness is a strong driver of human behavior. There's plenty of incidental behaviour, but in terms of baby making it's clear cut.
That does not seem to be consistent with declining birthrates in developed countries. By and large, the more freedom and self sufficiency women have, the lower the birth rate (not a scientific conclusion, but what I see so take it with a boulder of salt).
I often wonder if we went back in time and asked all the women who had 3, 4, 5+ children, how many of those were wanted pregnancies versus how many of those were due to “pressure” of some kind from the father or society.
> It's more efficient when you consider humans have a long maturation time. Reproductive success is also greater when grandparents are involved with child rearing, implying that a strong family unit leads to better outcomes.
I would also guess tribes that prioritize monogamous relationships with multiple generations cooperating with each other outlast tribes that do not. But I would also guess that the biological (or “machine” aspect of it) is for males to be promiscuous. The tribes that fight this biological urge by whatever means (even just keeping it hush hush so it allows for peace) would be more successful long term than those that do not?
> There's a lot more to it, and much of what I've learnt is from an old Stanford lecture series by Robert Sapolsky called human behavioural biology. Worth a watch if you're interested
I’ll check it out. Here’s a link for anyone else interested:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL150326949691B199
That does not seem to be consistent with declining birthrates in developed countries. By and large, the more freedom and self sufficiency women have, the lower the birth rate (not a scientific conclusion, but what I see so take it with a boulder of salt).
I often wonder if we went back in time and asked all the women who had 3, 4, 5+ children, how many of those were wanted pregnancies versus how many of those were due to “pressure” of some kind from the father or society.
> It's more efficient when you consider humans have a long maturation time. Reproductive success is also greater when grandparents are involved with child rearing, implying that a strong family unit leads to better outcomes.
I would also guess tribes that prioritize monogamous relationships with multiple generations cooperating with each other outlast tribes that do not. But I would also guess that the biological (or “machine” aspect of it) is for males to be promiscuous. The tribes that fight this biological urge by whatever means (even just keeping it hush hush so it allows for peace) would be more successful long term than those that do not?
> There's a lot more to it, and much of what I've learnt is from an old Stanford lecture series by Robert Sapolsky called human behavioural biology. Worth a watch if you're interested
I’ll check it out. Here’s a link for anyone else interested:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL150326949691B199
> That does not seem to be consistent with declining birthrates in developed countries. By and large, the more freedom and self sufficiency women have, the lower the birth rate
I have read this before and I think it's an accurate phenomenon. There's some amount of 'evolutionary warfare' between sexes. I think the biological mechanism for it is called 'imprinting'. Also women have preference for someone who will help with the cost of pregnancy (which can be fatal) and rearing, as for men, they might not include this in their calculus.
> I would also guess tribes that prioritize monogamous relationships with multiple generations cooperating with each other outlast tribes that do not.
The picture is, of course, complicated. Societies/tribes have varied between polygamy and monogamy, and a number of factors are involved, including culture. All better explained by that lecture series. Though keep in mind is over a decade old
I have read this before and I think it's an accurate phenomenon. There's some amount of 'evolutionary warfare' between sexes. I think the biological mechanism for it is called 'imprinting'. Also women have preference for someone who will help with the cost of pregnancy (which can be fatal) and rearing, as for men, they might not include this in their calculus.
> I would also guess tribes that prioritize monogamous relationships with multiple generations cooperating with each other outlast tribes that do not.
The picture is, of course, complicated. Societies/tribes have varied between polygamy and monogamy, and a number of factors are involved, including culture. All better explained by that lecture series. Though keep in mind is over a decade old
Being fit serves many goals other than attracting a mate. I wouldn’t personally even put it in the top 3, although admittedly most people probably would.
Keeping fit permits a longer lifespan, which can be important for the evolutionary fitness of grand kids. Also, I'm being a bit facetious, I don't believe all our behavior neatly fits into evolutionary motivations, and the science doesn't claim such rigidity. It does, however, have startling explanatory power about a bunch of things we do. I'd suggest watching the lecture series in the sibling thread
I don’t think they put on more weight than people in a relationship they don’t enjoy. So the enjoyment factor seems irrelevant at best.
I think he looks fine. But maybe I'm just not used to how he usually looks. Others in this thread say the same as you.
It looks like he had some face procedures done
That’s what I thought. It doesn’t move as I would expect it to, and I usually see that with Botox or whatever other plastic surgeries there are.
Also looks like he gained weight, at least in the face.
PS: It is disappointing when people use services that don’t let you skip back and forth in video.
Also looks like he gained weight, at least in the face.
PS: It is disappointing when people use services that don’t let you skip back and forth in video.
Someone reuploaded it here, if you want to skip back and forth
https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/nu98n7/jeff_bez...
This was my thought too. Looks like some typical swelling from some sort of cosmetic procedure.
Would not be surprising given the divorce.
Would not be surprising given the divorce.
his shirt also seem "puffy" under hist shirt compared to how he usually looked.
I do not believe it's possible to decide whether he's swollen from corticosteroids, or because he's bulking up in a gym, he's just just eating more because he's happy or because he's sad.
I hope he's fine, time will tell.
I do not believe it's possible to decide whether he's swollen from corticosteroids, or because he's bulking up in a gym, he's just just eating more because he's happy or because he's sad.
I hope he's fine, time will tell.
Looks like he has put on some pandemic lockdown weight.
This is a picture from 2017:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos#/media/File:Jeff_Be...
Doesn't really look that different?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos#/media/File:Jeff_Be...
Doesn't really look that different?
Slightly bloated from pictures shared a year or two ago maybe, but he still looks very healthy for a 57 year old.
My guess is that he stopped working out and now retired he put on lots of weight. Hopefully not health issues.
Isn't facial bloating a common side effect to zero-g training? I wouldn't be surprised if he's been spending time flying parabolas.
It's fun, he's got the resources, and there's a relative goal on the near-term.
It's fun, he's got the resources, and there's a relative goal on the near-term.
Here's a Youtube link for what I think is the same video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgZA2SzCc78
He’s always looked a bit strange like that, I don’t think it’s a recent change.
He’s getting older.
I thought the same, hope hes keeping well.
yes
I am somewhat uneducated on the topic but is space tourism a good idea? It is a flight to nowhere which surely has a hefty carbon cost. Doesn't it also add pollutants high up in the atmosphere?
As exciting as it is to experience space I could imagine the environment cost is far from ideal.
As exciting as it is to experience space I could imagine the environment cost is far from ideal.
A SpaceX launch outputs 336,552KG of CO2. I imagine Blue Origin's first passenger flight will be a bit less because it's not going as high.
The environmental cost of doing anything is far from ideal, but in the case of space tourism the impact is minimal. A 777-300 flight from New York to London outputs about 1,261KG of CO2 per passenger.[1] In British Airways configuration there are 299 seats on a plane like that, which is 377,039KG in total. There are 28 direct NY-LDN flights daily.
If the goal is to reduce the amount of high atmosphere CO2 then persuading 300 fewer people to fly across the Atlantic would have a larger impact.
It's also worth pointing out that Jeff Bezos owns two Gulfstream G650ER private jets, which will be putting a lot more CO2 in to the atmosphere than his day trip to space.
[1] From https://www.atmosfair.de/en/offset/flight/
EDIT: It turns out that Blue Origin's rocket exhaust is water, so all the CO2 is retained at ground level. I guess that's good news.
The environmental cost of doing anything is far from ideal, but in the case of space tourism the impact is minimal. A 777-300 flight from New York to London outputs about 1,261KG of CO2 per passenger.[1] In British Airways configuration there are 299 seats on a plane like that, which is 377,039KG in total. There are 28 direct NY-LDN flights daily.
If the goal is to reduce the amount of high atmosphere CO2 then persuading 300 fewer people to fly across the Atlantic would have a larger impact.
It's also worth pointing out that Jeff Bezos owns two Gulfstream G650ER private jets, which will be putting a lot more CO2 in to the atmosphere than his day trip to space.
[1] From https://www.atmosfair.de/en/offset/flight/
EDIT: It turns out that Blue Origin's rocket exhaust is water, so all the CO2 is retained at ground level. I guess that's good news.
As a side note: Stratospheric/high-altitude water vapor is probably also a contributor to global warming.
[deleted]
If the overview effect [1] is real, even just a few world leaders and ultra-wealthy appreciating the fragility of earth could easily outweigh any pollution from space tourism.
In terms of carbon it's not even that bad, a spaceflight is roughly comparable to an airliner crossing the Atlantic. Of course it puts other pollutants in more layers of the atmosphere, something we definitely have to study as spaceflight becomes more common.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect
In terms of carbon it's not even that bad, a spaceflight is roughly comparable to an airliner crossing the Atlantic. Of course it puts other pollutants in more layers of the atmosphere, something we definitely have to study as spaceflight becomes more common.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect
Why wouldn't the overview effect be real?
Anyway the question is if 2-3 minutes are enough to have it kick in.
Anyway the question is if 2-3 minutes are enough to have it kick in.
It will probably help humanity venture into space so I would answer yes it is a good idea. Rich people that can afford space tourism also can afford doing other things with their money which is also carbon intensive but doesn't bring humanity forward technology wise.
Regular tourism is far worse.
Regular tourism is bad, but rocket tourism is a new kind of bad because it puts pollutants in the upper atmosphere and we really don't know what the effects of that will be.
Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-air-poll...
Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-air-poll...
New Shepard doesn't use solid fuel. Its exhaust is water.
In absolute numbers you're right because millions of people are tourists compared to a few wealthy space tourists. But that's a strange metric to use, the space tourists are part of the regular tourist group as well. If we compare energy usage per tourist the numbers will be stacked against space tourism.
The Blue Origin "tourist rocket"[1] uses hydrogen as a fuel and oxygen as an oxidizer, so there are no direct emissions or pollutants.
In general you are of course right. The top 1% will slightly increase their already large carbon footprint by a small amount.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Shepard
In general you are of course right. The top 1% will slightly increase their already large carbon footprint by a small amount.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Shepard
not quite. any high-temperature combustion in atmosphere is going to create some NOx.
How many emissions and pollutants came from refining the hydrogen and oxygen though?
Is it done with electricity? In that case it would be whatever the grip offers and probably the
'd pay the premium for renewables to keep their image.
No, hydrogen at an industrial scale is produced chemically from petroleum. The two steps are "shift reaction" and "steam reforming."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-gas_shift_reaction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming
The days of hydrogen being an efficient storage medium for solar or nuclear energy through electrolysis are far in the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-gas_shift_reaction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming
The days of hydrogen being an efficient storage medium for solar or nuclear energy through electrolysis are far in the future.
Blue Origin doesn't need hydrogen at industrial scale. They could easily supply themselves with "green" hydrogen created via electrolysis.
Elon Musk has promised to eventually fuel Starship with synthetic "green" methane. Green hydrogen is a much simpler problem, so if Blue Origin hasn't yet made that promise, it's quite likely they will soon.
Elon Musk has promised to eventually fuel Starship with synthetic "green" methane. Green hydrogen is a much simpler problem, so if Blue Origin hasn't yet made that promise, it's quite likely they will soon.
>Elon Musk has promised to eventually fuel Starship with synthetic "green" methane.
Just so I can pencil this on my calendar, where does this fit on the timeline relative to full self-driving and the hyperloop?
Just so I can pencil this on my calendar, where does this fit on the timeline relative to full self-driving and the hyperloop?
According to wikipedia, 95% is hydrogen is made from fossil fuels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production
If you think the future of humanity is in space (I do, but opinions vary) then yes, space tourism is excellent and critical idea.
Generally it drives practical use cases, has a clear revenue model (which is really, really important to keep any complex financial and technical project honest) and drives popular demand for "space" in general. Having rich and famous tweeting orbital and translunar updates would do more for image of space travel than 50 years of science fiction and state advertising combined.
For example, low gravity has lots of well documented side effects. Even though short term microgravity is not too bad, having a constant stream of rich people travel there will create more demand for space medicine, which will probably drive innovation to improve the lot of all space travelers long term.
Launching stuff to orbit will have a carbon cost. And it should be tallied. But it's a cost we have to pay ANYWAY to become an interstellar species.
Generally it drives practical use cases, has a clear revenue model (which is really, really important to keep any complex financial and technical project honest) and drives popular demand for "space" in general. Having rich and famous tweeting orbital and translunar updates would do more for image of space travel than 50 years of science fiction and state advertising combined.
For example, low gravity has lots of well documented side effects. Even though short term microgravity is not too bad, having a constant stream of rich people travel there will create more demand for space medicine, which will probably drive innovation to improve the lot of all space travelers long term.
Launching stuff to orbit will have a carbon cost. And it should be tallied. But it's a cost we have to pay ANYWAY to become an interstellar species.
Is life a good idea? Human have a hefty carbon cost, and aren't they also the leading cause of pollutants? I could imagine individuals truly concerned for the environment would stop reproducing.
That's commendable IMO. Arthur C. Clarke's first published short story "Travel by Wire!" shows the inventor of teleportation travelling by plane. When questioned on this he says, "I don't travel by wire, I invented it!"
I mean it would look bad if he wasn't aboard, wouldn't it? "Pay lots of money for my space ride [that I'm not going to actually go on myself]"
It seems more desperate. I think he's jealous of musk, as he should be. Musk is doing so much net good for humanity, while Bezos seems more like Mr. Burns from the Simpsons.
I don't know, does it look bad for Elon Musk to not go on SpaceX private flights? I would say it doesn't change much.
People generally dont expect Musk to go to the ISS on Crew Dragon - because he's not an astronaut. But if SpaceX start doing 'space tourism' aimed at general (if somewhat rich) consumers then it would be odd for Musk not to take a ride on that - dont you think?
Similarly Branson would be expected to have a go on his space tourism thing once it opens up to the public.
Similarly Branson would be expected to have a go on his space tourism thing once it opens up to the public.
There is no "if". SpaceX has planned missions and contracts for many more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspiration4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspiration4
That's someone subcontracting, a bit different to Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic saying "buy a ticket here"
Musk was known to joke that the (pressurised) Cargo Dragon spacecraft had everything needed for a stowaway to visit the ISS. Thank goodness he didn't try it - probably a stunt too far even for him.
Your tax dollars at work? https://theintercept.com/2021/05/25/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-s...
That's a different program.
And that $10B (actually $6B, and even that $6B will be split among 4 companies) hasn't actually been awarded.
Jeff has put $9B of his own money to Blue Origin so far.
Will there ever be a point where the NASA director will request a lower budget because private companies have enough funding already?
I suspect this may be why he stepped down as CEO of Amazon. The corporate risk is huge for the the CEO of Amazon to fly on something that risky, and the board may have insisted he step down before doing it.
Besides personal desire to do it, this could be seen as a traditional symbolic show of confidence in safety -- like an engineer standing under their new bridge, the first time vehicles go over it.
Show of confidence + skin in the game
For no money I would do that. I would rather start a life as a farmer and care more about the environment.
This article was light on details of what this flight entails. Here is a better source [1]:
> Zero-G will begin from the third minute into flight, and then at some point between and the flight’s highest point, or apogee, at four minutes, Bezos and the others onboard will officially pass into space. Gravity will return at approximately six minutes post-launch, with the parachutes deploying at nine minutes, and finally a landing at around 10 minutes after takeoff.
So this is a 10 minute flight with 2 minutes of zero G.
It came as a surprise to me to learn that Blue Origin was founded in 2000 and SpaceX was founded in _2002_. SpaceX recently celebrated 100 successful Falcon 9 launches _in a row_. It's fair to say that Blue Origin at this point has... under-delivered.
I can't find a definitive list of commercial launches (which, presumably, would be for New Shepherd) but it seems to be a handful at best. And just how many billions has Bezos poured into this?
I do wonder if Bezos's retirement as Amazon CEO will lead him to taking a more active role in Blue Origin going forward. This flight is probably meant to bring attention to the company and maybe put the pressure on. It seems like quite a risk though for something still so relatively unproven. I mean Musk hasn't gone up on a SpaceX launch yet. To be fair, his contract with Tesla probably forbids it (as, I suspect, Bezos's with Amazon does as well).
Oh and to anyone commenting on billionaires flexing at each other and otherwise competing this is nothing new. I suggest you look back at the history of Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and JP Morgan (to name a few). This is nothing new.
[1]: https://www.slashgear.com/jeff-bezos-is-going-to-space-07676...
> Zero-G will begin from the third minute into flight, and then at some point between and the flight’s highest point, or apogee, at four minutes, Bezos and the others onboard will officially pass into space. Gravity will return at approximately six minutes post-launch, with the parachutes deploying at nine minutes, and finally a landing at around 10 minutes after takeoff.
So this is a 10 minute flight with 2 minutes of zero G.
It came as a surprise to me to learn that Blue Origin was founded in 2000 and SpaceX was founded in _2002_. SpaceX recently celebrated 100 successful Falcon 9 launches _in a row_. It's fair to say that Blue Origin at this point has... under-delivered.
I can't find a definitive list of commercial launches (which, presumably, would be for New Shepherd) but it seems to be a handful at best. And just how many billions has Bezos poured into this?
I do wonder if Bezos's retirement as Amazon CEO will lead him to taking a more active role in Blue Origin going forward. This flight is probably meant to bring attention to the company and maybe put the pressure on. It seems like quite a risk though for something still so relatively unproven. I mean Musk hasn't gone up on a SpaceX launch yet. To be fair, his contract with Tesla probably forbids it (as, I suspect, Bezos's with Amazon does as well).
Oh and to anyone commenting on billionaires flexing at each other and otherwise competing this is nothing new. I suggest you look back at the history of Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and JP Morgan (to name a few). This is nothing new.
[1]: https://www.slashgear.com/jeff-bezos-is-going-to-space-07676...
It’s an expensive roller coaster but it’s still promising. They’re perfecting technologies and gaining the experience they’ll need to build real orbital vehicles. They seem to be trying to do something between Virgin Galactic and SpaceX to get this company off the ground, so to speak. Probably not a bad idea since Bezos obviously doesn’t want to go all in like Musk did but also doesn’t want to bleed cash into a money pit.
[deleted]
Well you how know even something simple like an app is buggy and has issues the developer didn't anticipate for the first few releases?
Imagine something as serious as a spacecraft.
But this is about as much as a journey into "space" is as a high altitude plane flight.
I still remember the months of watching "go for throttle up" explosion footage in 1986 (it was the 9/11 before 9/11) the few tv stations at the time would not stop playing it. I think we all became numb to it.
Imagine something as serious as a spacecraft.
But this is about as much as a journey into "space" is as a high altitude plane flight.
I still remember the months of watching "go for throttle up" explosion footage in 1986 (it was the 9/11 before 9/11) the few tv stations at the time would not stop playing it. I think we all became numb to it.
I don’t keep up with Blue Origin, have they demonstrated the ability to do this safely?